That giant sucking sound...

[Larry Gude]

...is, once again, William Jefferson Clinton entering the room.

In 8 minutes, says Howard Fineman, Clinton laid out the case against Bush better than Kerry has in the previous eight months or ever will.

So, Thursday, Clinton is on TV and my question is; Is this the final nail in the Kerry coffin? Or, does Clinton actually help Kerry?

In case anyone on the left cares to remember, Bill started the divide in our national politics that W gets blamed for.

The media, ergo, the left, spent 8 years blaming anything and everyone BUT him for his behavior while the last 3 years, as Urbanpancake takes great delight in, EVERYTHING, right down to your hangnail or late newspaper is PERSONALLY George W. Bushs fault.

This is no cherished party elder trotting out to doff his cap and say 'vote for our guy!'. Nope. This is The Bill and his presence makes Kerry look painfully inept, Gore-ish if you will, by comparison.

The flip side is it helps Bush by rekindling the annoyance of moderates and the right being reminded of the scandal a day years.

So, is this a case of securing Hillarys spot in '08 or does this put Kerry over the top? He did the same thing, taking the spotlight, by releasing his book right before the Democratic convention and Kerry got no bounce, a bounce that EVERYONE gets.

 

[SamSpade]

You gotta think that that scream you heard all the way from Chappaqua was Hillary when she heard Bill was doing this.

 

[Tonio]

In case anyone on the left cares to remember, Bill started the divide in our national politics that W gets blamed for.

He didn't start the divide, but he did more than anyone else to widen it. As I wrote in another thread, the divide really started in the '60s.

If Bill really cared about national unity, he would stay out of politics for the rest of his life. But he lives for the adulation. What can we do to keep him busy and out of American politics? I liked the idea of Secretary-General of the UN, where he would be a high-profile figurehead with no real power. Or maybe he could head up a movie studio. Or how about ambassador to some small country, like Andorra or Tuvali?

 

[tlatchaw]

Or maybe he could head up a movie studio.

Two words sum up why he sould love his job: Casting Couch

 

[Gooseneck]

The gagfest would have been complete had Jimmeh Cottah come on stage.

 

[Tonio]

Two words sum up why he sould love his job: Casting Couch

 

[Larry Gude]

I'll not split hairs with you...

He didn't start the divide, but he did more than anyone else to widen it. As I wrote in another thread, the divide really started in the '60s.

...No, wait, I will!

I don't disagree per se. It's just that we've had numerous periods in our history from the begining including the divide over whether to declare independance or not, the Civil War, our Robber Baron period, the Great Depression and so on and to some extent they are all conected.

I'd just give Bill a pass in regards to the 60's because he was very much a child of his times. Plenty of people grew out of the 'if it feels good do it' mentality of their youth. He did not and he brought his frat show to the White House. He made us actually discuss the meaning of 'is' and whether or not a blow job would be something ones wife might view as cheating or not. Add to this the real scandals of Loral and Lippo etc, etc, etc.

I also think that the blind support he recieved from the media and the rest of the Democratic party and rank and file members in return for nothing policy or even power wise, over eight years, are the seeds of our current public discontent. Call it 'beaten constituent syndrome'.

He ripped them off (all of us actually) and, damn it, Bush got in the way of the redemtion that may have occured under Gore.

If the Senate had removed Clinton via impeachent, as should have obviously happened, Gore finishes the term and is in a strong position to win re-election. But no, they sold out themselves for one guy and his personality, held on to the lie and got nothing in return.

Losing to a bumkin like W, their view, is the worst salt in an open wound.

The Clinton era is a specific and especially devisive period in our civic life me thinks and I think his re-appearance re opens the wounds he created.

 

[Tonio]

Larry, I'm suggesting that only the current divide has its roots in the battles of the '60s, especially over Vietnam. The baby boom generation has a lot of emotional investment in the Vietnam issue.

If the Senate had removed Clinton via impeachent, as should have obviously happened, Gore finishes the term and is in a strong position to win re-election. But no, they sold out themselves for one guy and his personality, held on to the lie and got nothing in return.

Interesting point. What if Clinton had pulled a Nixon and just resigned after admitting that he lied before the grand jury? Would that have healed the divide somewhat?

 

[jlabsher]

You obviously don't think conservative media people like Rush & Liddy had anything to do with the divide?

Of course it is OK to rag on Clinton on SOMD, but not Reagan even though I seem to recall a few "improprieties" during his administration.

Get over it folks, Clinton isn't running this time. But of course the 500,000 people who showed up cheering at the rally yesterday didn't mind, and face it, if Clinton could run again, he'd be elected.

 

[vraiblonde]

The baby boom generation has a lot of emotional investment in the Vietnam issue.

Vietnam vets are my parents' age - mid-50s is the very youngest they could be. They're not the ones rioting in the streets and threatening civil war. Most of these loony liberals are my age or younger and have no memory of Vietnam. When Larry and I were in NY during the demonstration, we saw a huge group of guys carrying "Vietnam Vets Against Bush" signs. No way in hell did any one of these guys serve a single day in Vietnam. They were my age and younger, meaning they were 7 or 8 years old, tops, during Vietnam.

The Tet Offensive (the beginning of the end) took place in 1968. Think about how long ago that was. I don't know how old you were, but I was 5.

 

[Ken King]

Vietnam vets are my parents' age - mid-50s is the very youngest they could be. They're not the ones rioting in the streets and threatening civil war. Most of these loony liberals are my age or younger and have no memory of Vietnam. When Larry and I were in NY during the demonstration, we saw a huge group of guys carrying "Vietnam Vets Against Bush" signs. No way in hell did any one of these guys serve a single day in Vietnam. They were my age and younger, meaning they were 7 or 8 years old, tops, during Vietnam.

The Tet Offensive (the beginning of the end) took place in 1968. Think about how long ago that was. I don't know how old you were, but I was 5.

We can be as young as 47 dear lady. It was April of 75 when we left Saigon.

 

[Larry Gude]

Tonio...

Interesting point. What if Clinton had pulled a Nixon and just resigned after admitting that he lied before the grand jury? Would that have healed the divide somewhat?

Nixon didn't pull a Nixon. GOP party elders, including Sen. Barry Goldwater went to the Whitehouse and TOLD Nixon what he had to do for the nation. Nixon had violated the public trust and, in that day, that was unforgiveable.

I think Clinton was in his first AG tour in Arkansas and there is a clip at the time of him saying that Nixons real crime was lying to the American people.

Ain't that rich.

Contrast that to Congressional Democrats marching not to tell Clinton he was wrong but marching to that grotesque pep rally where Gore shrieked that Clinton was one of our greatest presidents of all time.

Tom Kelly, the Wash Post columnist who died in Iraq, was what I call a Ken King Democrat; honor first, do what is right.

He, Kelly, wrote shortly after the Clinton impeachment that his party, the Democratic party, sold out its legacy of always seeking the moral high ground in elevating one man over party, principle and nation.

So, yes, I think we would be in a far better place as President Gore would be right now finishing his first full term. Gore was a wooden public figure with a tin political ear and rather opportunistic but he lacked Clintons basic immorality; do the right now thing.

 

[Larry Gude]

jlab...

...you never cease to amaze.

You obviously don't think conservative media people like Rush & Liddy had anything to do with the divide?

That was the Clinton line, first, last and always; someone, ANYONE, was responsible for his, Clintons, behavior...except Clinton.

 

[Larry Gude]

It would have been interesting...

Get over it folks, Clinton isn't running this time. But of course the 500,000 people who showed up cheering at the rally yesterday didn't mind, and face it, if Clinton could run again, he'd be elected.

...to see how Clinton would have actually done absent his boy Perot. Clinton did not win a majority in '92 nor '96. More people didn't want him than did and even with Nader, Gore (and W) got some 5,000,000 more votes than Bubba did either election.

 

[Tonio]

Nixon didn't pull a Nixon. GOP party elders, including Sen. Barry Goldwater went to the Whitehouse and TOLD Nixon what he had to do for the nation. Nixon had violated the public trust and, in that day, that was unforgiveable.

I read that in Woodward and Bernstein's "The Final Days." It took almost a year for Nixon aides and GOP leaders to convince him that resignation was the right course.

And yes, the Democratic party leadership could have done the same with Clinton, and I was disappointed that they didn't. Still, Clinton had Nixon as an example, since the choice is ultimately the President's.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh yeah...

...and instead of telling me to 'get over' something I'm not under how about you opine as to the question:

Is Clinton gonna help or hurt?

Personally, I'm glad he's back.

 

[Larry Gude]

I won't argue that...

And yes, the Democratic party leadership could have done the same with Clinton, and I was disappointed that they didn't. Still, Clinton had Nixon as an example, since the choice is ultimately the President's.

I'm just not giving Nixon credit for doing the right thing. His take was that it threatened the Presidency for all time if he could be forced from power for something so minor as political shenanigans that others got away with all the time.

He missed the trust factor that emerged over that year that we call the 'coverup'.

I think it has to be understood that in regards to Nixon, he was THE Boogey man to Democrats even though he did resign. Hillary served with the people who actually drafted the impeachment documents. Bill had his public statements.

For the fruit of the Anti-Nixon flower of the Democratic party to fall in a Nixonian manner is, I think, the real story behind why they didn't kick him out; losing Nixon as punching bag was unthinkable. Impossible.

 

[vraiblonde]

We can be as young as 47 dear lady. It was April of 75 when we left Saigon.

Whatever. My point is that these people ransacking and shooting at Bush campaign offices are NOT Vietnam vets, nor are liberals freaking out because of anything having to do with Vietnam. The War on Tara is just a handy excuse for leftist nutties to come out of the woodwork and wreak havoc.

 

[Ken King]

I caught the point of your post, just bringing to your attention a factual error. So for your "Whatever" you get a

 

[SamSpade]

...and instead of telling me to 'get over' something I'm not under how about you opine as to the question:

Is Clinton gonna help or hurt?

I suspect neither. I think his arrival on the campaign makes Kerry look like a wanna-be, and very badly. There has to be this sense of "we want to elect THIS GUY?" when looking at Clinton next to Kerry. But they will vote for him anyway.